alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021019EN.01001101.xml

| 18.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 November 2020 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-842/19) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations - Non-compliance - Free movement of capital - Article 63 TFEU - Incompatibility of Belgian tax provisions concerning income from immovable property located abroad - Article 260(2) TFEU - Application for an order to pay a penalty payment and a lump sum)

(2021/C 19/14)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Roels and A. Armenia, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: P. Cottin, J.-C. Halleux and C. Pochet, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to take all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 12 April 2018 delivered in Case C-110/17, Commission v Belgium (C-110/17, EU:C:2018:250), the Kingdom of Belgium failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to take all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 12 April 2018 delivered in Case C-110/17, Commission v Belgium (C-110/17, EU:C:2018:250), the Kingdom of Belgium failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay to the European Commission a lump sum of EUR 2 000 000; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay to the European Commission a lump sum of EUR 2 000 000;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to make to the European Commission a penalty payment of EUR 7 500 per day as from the date of delivery of the present judgment and until the date of compliance with the judgment of 12 April 2018, Commission v Belgium (C-110/17, EU:C:2018:250); |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to make to the European Commission a penalty payment of EUR 7 500 per day as from the date of delivery of the present judgment and until the date of compliance with the judgment of 12 April 2018, Commission v Belgium (C-110/17, EU:C:2018:250);

| 4. | Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.

---
# C_2019065EN.01004801.xml

| 18.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/48

---

Order of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — BGC Partners v EUIPO — Bankgirocentralen BGC (AUREL BGC)

(Case T-522/18) (1)

(2019/C 65/65)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 392, 29.10.2018.

---
Concha pardusca cubre 

al menos la mitad del 

largo del caracol

Huevos Hibernación

Puede medir hasta 8 pulgadas de 

largo y 5 pulgadas de diámetro.

CICLO DE VIDA

CARACOL 

GIGANTE

AFRICANO

Adulto

Cada caracol apareado 

puede poner hasta 

1,200 huevos al año.

El caracol puede sobrevivir 

en condiciones frías y 

podría invernar en el 

norte de los Estados 

Unidos retardando su 

metabolismo, casi 

invernando hasta la 

primavera. 
ELDAÑO QUE CAUSA

Esta plaga es uno de los caracoles más dañinos del mundo 

pues puede alimentarse de al menos 500 distintos tipos 

de plantas. Representan un riesgo serio para la salud de 

los humanos pues pueden ser portadores de un parásito 

que puede causar meningitis. Los caracoles además dañan 

los edi cios ya que comen yeso, estuco y otros materiales 

ricos en calcio que necesitan para el crecimiento de 

sus caparazones. No tienen enemigos naturales, y se 

reproducen rápidamente, pues cada caracol apareado 

pone alrededor de 1,200 huevos al año. 

LO QUE USTED PUEDE HACER

• No traiga o envíe por correo frutas frescas, vegetales o 

plantas a su estado o a cualquier otro a menos que sean 

autorizadas por los inspectores agrícolas con anterioridad. 

• Reporte toda información sobre importación/

contrabando ilegal del caracol llamando a la línea directa 

sin cargos, 1-800-877-3835, del Departamento de 

Agricultura de EEUU.

• Permita que los trabajadores agrícolas autorizados

entren a su propiedad para inspeccionar si hay presencia 

del caracol. 

• Reporte cada vez que vea esta plaga en

PlagasHambrientas.com.

Infestación

BACK

FÍJESEEN LO SIGUIENTE

• Cuando ya ha crecido por 

completo, el caparazón consiste 

de siete a nueve espirales, con un 

cuerpo en forma de espiral largo y 

de gran volumen .

• El caparazón pardusco con rayas 

a lo largo de color marrón más 

oscuro cubre al menos la mitad 

del largo del caracol.

Para obtener más información, visite: 

Departamento de Agricultura de los Estados Unidos

Servicio de Inspección Sanitaria de Animales y Plantas

El Departamento de Agricultura de EEUU es un proveedor y empleador que ofrece igualdad de 

oportunidades. Material del programa núm. 2125-GAS-S Publicado en septiembre de 2012

PLAGASHAMBRIENTAS.COM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF JULY 31, 1997 AND THE CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JULY 31, 1997
FOUND ON PAGES 3 AND 4 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1997
<CASH>                                            5343
<SECURITIES>                                      6678
<RECEIVABLES>                                     4633
<ALLOWANCES>                                       508
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 16595
<PP&E>                                            8669
<DEPRECIATION>                                    6305
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   19110
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            10624
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         53300
<OTHER-SE>                                     (45117)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     19110
<SALES>                                           5134
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  5134
<CGS>                                             1314
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     7322
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (93)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  33
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2128)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        47
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (2175)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2175)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.27)
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 99.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the AnnualReport of Kaiser Group Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the yearending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Marijo L. Ahlgrimm, Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Marijo  L. Ahlgrimm  |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
|                     |
| Marijo L.  Ahlgrimm      |
| Chief  Financial Officer |
| March 31,  2003          |

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company andwill be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7898

JOHN PAUL TURNER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District

Judge. (CR-96-1012-R)

Submitted: August 28, 1997 Decided: September 10, 1997

Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Paul Turner, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's orders denying relief

on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint and denying his motion for

reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district

court's orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

on the reasoning of the district court. Turner v. United States,

No. CA-96-1012-R (W.D. Va. Nov. 22 & Dec. 6, 1996). We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 113 (Thursday, July 26, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1335]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

  IN RECOGNITION OF THE 75TH ANNIVERSARY OF CAROLINAS MEDICAL CENTER-
                               NORTHEAST

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. LARRY KISSELL

                           of north carolina

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, July 26, 2012

  Mr. KISSELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Carolinas Medical 
Center-NorthEast, and the celebration of its 75th Anniversary. 
Carolinas Medical Center-NorthEast is a regional 457-bed, not-for-
profit medical center in Concord, NC, delivering top quality care to 
the community.
  Over the past 75 years, Carolinas Medical Center-NorthEast has grown 
from a small, local hospital to a regional referral center, offering 
state of the art care to thousands. In this time, they have established 
a reputation for excellence in the areas of cancer care, neurosciences, 
cardiology, and high risk obstetrics.
  In 1937, in an effort to care for his employees, Cannon Mills owner 
Charles A. Cannon, and George A. Batte, Jr. opened Cabarrus County 
Hospital. Years later in 1951, in honor of World War II veterans, 
Cabarrus County Hospital officially changed its name to the Cabarrus 
Memorial Hospital. During the 1990s, the hospital grew to a 60-acre 
medical campus with specifically designed centers for women's services, 
surgery, and cancer and cardiac care. In 2006, NorthEast Medical Center 
opened the Jeff Gordon Children's Hospital, to work to ensure the 
absolute best care for children in the area. A year later, in 2007, 
NorthEast Medical Center joined the Carolinas Healthcare System, and 
assumed its current name, Carolinas Medical Center-NorthEast. This 
hospital, which was conceived to care for workers, is now our area's 
top employer.
  Among the awards and recognition that Carolinas Medical Center-
NorthEast has received are J.D. Power and Associates Distinguished 
Hospital Program for Excellence in Maternity Services and Emergency 
Services. The hospital is also a recipient of the United States 
Department of Health and Human Services' Medal of Honor for organ 
donation, as well as a ``Top Performer'' award in patient satisfaction 
for overall quality from Professional Research Consultants in 2012.
  Today, I ask all Members of Congress to join me in honoring Carolinas 
Medical Center-NorthEast, as an asset to the people I am proud to 
represent in North Carolina.

                          ____________________
```
#### Strout Realty Inc., Respondent, v James Mechta, Appellant.

— In an action for payment of a brokerage commission, the parties were directed to appear before this court to be heard upon the issue of the imposition of appropriate sanctions or costs, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, to be imposed against the defendant for his conduct in pursuing a frivolous appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, entered November 14, 1989 *(see, Strout Realty v Mechta,*172 AD2d 602).

Upon the proceedings before this court on April 24, 1991, at which the parties were given an opportunity to be heard on the issue of sanctions and costs, it is

Ordered that James Mechta, the defendant *pro se,*is directed to pay $2,836 in costs to,counsel for the plaintiff and $5,000 in sanctions to the Lawyer’s Fund for Client Protection, for a total of $7,836, within 20 days after service upon him of a copy of this decision and order with notice of entry, for his conduct in pursuing this frivolous appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), entered November 14,1989.

The facts of the underlying action were set forth in our prior decision and order, which affirmed the order appealed from *(see, Strout Realty v Mechta,*172 AD2d 602, *supra).*We concluded therein that "the defendant’s conduct in pursuing [a second] appeal [with regard to this litigation] that so obviously lacks merit in either fact or law must be characterized as frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-L1 (c)” *(Strout Realty v Mechta, supra,*at 602-603). On April 24, 1991, the defendant *pro se*and counsel for the plaintiff appeared before this court and were heard on the record with respect to the question of sanctions and costs. Although given the oppor*202tunity to do so, the defendant failed to demonstrate that his claims had any legitimate basis whatever, in light of the facts. During the proceeding, counsel for. the plaintiff stated and documented that the sum necessary to reimburse his firm for its legal services and disbursements on this appeal was $2,836. Accordingly, we direct that the defendant compensate the plaintiffs counsel for those costs in the amount of $2,836 and that he pay an additional $5,000 sanction to the Lawyer’s Fund for Client Protection *(see, Matter of Minister, Elders & Deacons of Refm. Prot. Dutch Church v 198 Broadway,*76 NY2d 411, 413). Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
Consent of Independent Accountants


We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  prospectuses
constituting part of the Registration  Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-69101 and
No.  333-88319) and  Registration  Statement on Form S-8 (No.  333-72337) of our
report dated March 2, 2000, relating to the consolidated financial statements of
QueryObject Systems Corporation,  which appears in this Form 10-KSB, dated March
30, 2000.


/s/ PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP

PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP
Melville, New York

March 30, 2000
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John S. Cullen, II, Appellant.

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject defendant’s contentions that the conduct of the prosecutor at the Grand Jury impaired the integrity of the proceedings so as to require dismissal of the indictment. The prosecutor has great discretion in presenting a case to the Grand Jury and is not obligated to search for or *659present exculpatory evidence, even if that evidence would help the jury to make a more informed decision *(see, People v Lancaster,*69 NY2d 20, 25-29, *cert denied*480 US 922; *People v Gilliam, 172*AD2d 1037). Here, the prosecutor properly refused to allow witnesses to answer questions of grand jurors that were not relevant to the issues before them. Moreover, upon our review of the transcript of the Grand Jury proceeding, we cannot conclude that the prosecutor improperly dominated the proceeding, nor do we find that she improperly failed to make further inquiry after a grand juror affirmed that he could evaluate in an unbiased fashion the testimony of a witness with whom he was familiar. In any event, defendant failed to demonstrate any prejudice to him resulting from the prosecutor’s actions *(see, People v Darby,*75 NY2d 449, 454-455).

The court did not err by refusing to charge that the complainant was an interested witness as a matter of law. The charge, as given, clearly instructed the jury that if it determined that a prosecution witness was an interested witness, it could take that into consideration when evaluating that witness’s credibility and when determining how much weight should be accorded that testimony *(see, People v Martin,*168 AD2d 221; *People v Luberoff,*150 AD2d 802, *lv denied*74 NY2d 813).

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict on the basis of newly discovered evidence. The evidence merely impeached the credibility of the complainant on collateral matters and probably would not have resulted in a different verdict if it had been admitted at trial *(see,*CPL 330.30 [3]; *People v Burnette, 117*AD2d 987). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Marshall, J. — Assault, 2nd Degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green, Pine and Lowery, JJ.
Record ofDiscussion Docket No . FAA- 

## ;;Jo

## 1;2 -!;z?i Directorate Identifier: 

# c2o;);2 

# - Je
--L/3 

# 4-.D -AD With whom outside the FAA has this AD action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)?

ORGANIZATION PERSON CONTACTED DATE TOPICS DISCUSSED 

### P&W Gregory Mias Sept 12, 2012 Concur. 

### EASA Lair Pascal July 13 , 2012 Concur.

Other/ Additional Information:



### 9
# C_2018104EN.01005001.xml

| 19.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/50

---

Action brought on 24 January 2018 — Ecolab USA v EUIPO (SOLIDPOWER)

(Case T-40/18)

(2018/C 104/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ecolab USA, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: V. Töbelmann and K. Middelhoff, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ‘SOLIDPOWER’ — Application for registration No 1 310 671

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 November 2017 in Case R 1182/2017-5

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to bear its own costs as well as the costs of the Applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to bear its own costs as well as the costs of the Applicant.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b), 7(1)(c) and Article 7(2) of Regulation No 2017/1001. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b), 7(1)(c) and Article 7(2) of Regulation No 2017/1001.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOUND IN
THE COMPANY'S 10-Q FOR THE YEAR-TO-DATE, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                      22,522,476
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,872,214
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (418,718)
<INVENTORY>                                  8,337,202
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            42,151,197
<PP&E>                                       5,398,947
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,392,984
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              62,943,664
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,724,085
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    44,484,288
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,735,291
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                62,943,664
<SALES>                                     16,362,509
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            16,362,509
<CGS>                                        6,999,721
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,689,152
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               130,853
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              46,613
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,911,418
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,584,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,911,418
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,327,418
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Unify Corporation (the “Registrant”) onForm 10-Q for the quarter ended October 31, 2003, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, ToddE. Wille, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, do hereby certify inaccordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:

 

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.78m); and

 

(2) the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Registrant.

 

 
| Dated:  December 9,2003 | /s/  TODD E. WILLE       |
|------------------------------|--------------------------|
|                         | Todd E.  Wille           |
|                         | Chief  Executive Officer |

 

*A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appearsin typed form within the electronic version of this written statement requiredby Section 906, has been provided to Unify Corporation and will beretained by Unify Corporation and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.*

 

1

----